A scene from 1992's "Jurassic Park."

Ahead of Friday's release of "Jurassic Park 3D" in theaters nationwide, it's been hard to ignore the TV spots and other various advertisements that have been popping up in anticipation of the 20th anniversary of the film's debut.

Undoubtedly, the film's promotional campaigns have been targeting late 1980s- and 1990s-born individuals who were likely too young to have seen the film in its original theatrical release but have since grown to love it.

My first memory of the film was getting around my mother's ban on me seeing it by watching it at Wal Mart in the VHS format on TVs the size of today's Mini Coopers. I'm sure I'm not the only one has some remembrance of what that initial viewing was like, and similarly I'd be willing to bet the advertisements and TV spots being shown now are conjuring up what viewers most remember about the film.

But because "Jurassic Park" is such an entertaining film, and because it has so many flawlessly executed scenes and sequences that leave such a positive impression on most viewers, it's easy to forget its commentary, including its take on evolution. But as I grew older and grasped what Jeff Goldblum's character of Dr. Ian Malcolm was saying about the delicate relationship between humans, science and religion, I also came to realize the film's director, Steven Spielberg, might have simultaneously been giving the viewer a warning of what blockbuster movies his films inspired were on track to becoming.

"If there is one thing the history of evolution has taught us it's that life will not be contained. Life breaks free, it expands to new territories and crashes through barriers, painfully, maybe even dangerously," Malcolm says in a discussion with one of the many scientists at Jurassic Park.

Sure, we can take the line at face value, but swapping in "film" for the word "life" doesn't exactly make the quote's meaning change or make the truth of it go away. In fact, it essentially states what has happened to today's summer movies in the wake of Spielberg's countless films. They've evolved to a dangerous place where the story and character development isn't like it is in the Spielberg films that inspired them.

As Malcolm could be a representation of Spielberg in the elaborate metaphor of filmmaking "Jurassic Park" could be, then John Hammond would represent those of us who get excited for things that will be in films other than the story and character development. Then, like Hammond, we become stunned when the product doesn't turn out the way we wanted it to.

But remember in that scenario, and in the real world of film consumption, the people who made the product were just doing what we asked for. Hammond asked for dinosaurs and he got them. Viewers pine for certain elements in films they anticipate and they get them. Only afterwards is it realized that those elements don't make the product a success or failure.

Twenty years ago, when "Jurassic Park" came out, no one really cared what dinosaurs were in the film, they were just happy to have a film with dinosaurs. But as audiences have evolved, and filmmakers have evolved to keep up, filmmakers have made decisions based on what they think will make viewers happy. Whereas just dinosaurs would have made audiences happy in 1993, nowadays audiences have specific requests. Or so they say until they discover the film has nothing else to offer. Like Hammond, we've become preoccupied with what films could do that we don't take a step back to look if they should.

And that's what makes the anticipation of any future "Jurassic Park" sequel, or any sequel or prequel or remake for that matter, scary at times. Questions get raised in anticipation of them, answers are given, and the studios and filmmakers listen and act accordingly.

Last week, plans for sequels to "Independence Day" - a late 90s film "Jurassic Park" had an influence on - were announced, with questions about casting preference and alien specifics being raised. This week plans for a "Finding Nemo" sequel were released, with speculation already starting on what new voices should be brought to the film's sea setting. And with a fourth "Jurassic Park" installment in the works, the 3D version coming to theaters has seemed to have drawn even more attention to people asking what dinosaurs it should feature and what characters could return.

The wrong answer those questions? Pretty much anything specific. The right answer to those questions? Whatever makes the film good.